The Mausolea & Monuments Trust
A small charity with a very big mission

Roger Bowdler

The Nash mausoleum at Farningham, Kent: one of the Mausolea and Monuments Trust’s early acquisitions

The highly-esteemed director
of the Soane Museum, Tim Knox, once
described the Mausolea and Monuments
Trust (or MMT) as ‘the dottiest conservation
cause in the land’. Speaking then as the
chairman of the MMT, he knew as well as any
the daunting challenge faced by the fledgling
charity in its attempts to make a difference in
the realm of funereal architecture. Most readers
will be well aware of the issues facing graveyards
and cemeteries in terms of the conservation
deficit. They will also be aware of some of the
worthy endeavours to rescue collapsing tombs
at a local level. This article looks at the work of
a national charitable body that was set up to
address one of the most serious conservation
causes: the plight of the mausoleum.

The MMT was set up by the late Dr Jill
Allibone (1932-1998) in 1996. The authority
on the Victorian architects George Devey and
Anthony Salvin, and a long-time stalwart of
the Victorian Society during its campaigning
heyday, Jill had identified a particular issue
attending the nation’s many mausolea. In short,
their legal owners didn’t want to know about
them. Often of exceptional design quality and
intricacy, they were frequently seen as irrelevant
encumbrances by their reluctant inheritors.
More demanding in terms of maintenance
than most memorials, these little buildings
devoted to the dead (as specific a definition for
this building type as we probably need) require
regular inspection and upkeep. As the excellent
MMT gazetteer of mausolea (compiled by
Teresa and David Sladen) illustrates, many of
them are now in poor condition.

MAUSOLEA IN DECLINE

Why are mausolea a problem? What are the
particular issues that attach to them? At least
four issues can be identified.

First of all, the mausoleum is as far removed
from the humble grave as it is possible to get.
All monuments are tributes to vanity, as well
as to love and memory. This is particularly
true of mausolea: they are among the most
self-serving and attention-seeking of all building
types. A sort of post-Reformation successor to
the chantry chapel, they are private structures
devoted to exclusive family use. Inside their
strong walls are limited places for the deposit
of stoutly coffined remains, placed on pantry-like
shelves. These were dynastic buildings,
marking out the family resting place from the
rest of the Anglican congregation, which was
generally placed in the ground to mingle in the
dust as a final act of parish communion. Some
of the grandest mausolea were built in private
grounds, thereby marking an even greater separation from the church and graveyard.
Mausolea were thus deliberately exclusive and
private: as archaeologists say, they were ‘high
status’. Some might see their decline as striking a
note of hubris.

A second, related point is the very privacy
of the buildings. As the embodiments of
dynastic pride and lineal provision, they are strongly connected to the concept of the
family. Legal responsibility for the upkeep
of memorials descends to the heirs-at-law. If
we stop to reflect on the mobility of modern
society and the infrequency of direct succession
to estates, we soon realise the likelihood of
memorials becoming the charges of quite
distant descendants. Some of us may be legally
responsible for monuments while remaining
utterly unaware of that responsibility. This is not
always the case: the Earl of Yarborough attends
to the superb Wyatt-designed mausoleum at
Brocklesby, dating from the mid 1790s, and
the Molyneux family has recently renovated
the imposing Gothic octagon in Kensal Green
Cemetery, designed by John Gibson in the
1860s.

But for every monument or mausoleum in
regular receipt of active care, there are many
which languish. To all intents and purposes,
they have been abandoned. How many of us are
aware of the burial sites of our forebears? The
family burial plot is less important a marker
of status and continuity than it once was, and
the mobility (both geographical and economic)
of modern society discourages us from the
age-old rituals of grave attendance and upkeep.
In practice, then, how many monuments have
any practical guardians? Genealogy might
be opening up family connections at a faster
pace than ever, but full legal responsibility for
the maintenance of monuments is a very rare
spin-off. There is a void of care in this area
which it is hard to overstress.

Is it right to expect parishes to make up for
this deficit? Probably not. Congregations face
a daunting task in keeping church buildings
in a fit state of repair, and the days of the
sexton, busying himself with stitch-in-time
maintenance as well as the digging of graves,
are well and truly over. It is all too easy for
graveyard maintenance to end up near the
bottom of the parish list of priorities; and the
higher-than-average maintenance demands of
a mausoleum make it all the more likely to be
sidelined or forgotten.

The restored crypt of James Wyatt’s 18th century Darnley mausoleum at Cobham, Kent

A fourth factor which operates against
the mausoleum is its uncertain status as
architecture. Too small to be a proper building,
and all too often locked up, it falls outside the
run of conventional appreciation. A residual
unease surrounding death and mortality still
lingers in modern society, despite decades
of discussion on the subject. The MMT’s
late patron, Sir Howard Colvin, published
Architecture and the Afterlife in 1991; its
present patron, James Stevens Curl, wrote
A Celebration of Death as long ago as 1980.
But these things aren’t everybody’s idea of
merriment, and we must accept that matters
funereal are probably a minority interest. All
the more important, therefore, to make the
case for this particular building type. Not only
are they some of the most atmospheric of
structures, they can possess design quality of
a very high order indeed. The unforgettable
Darnley mausoleum of 1785, designed by James
Wyatt at Cobham, Kent, has just benefited from
a major programme of restoration funded by
the Heritage Lottery Fund. Its crisp classical
pyramidal profile is once more secure after
decades of decline. However, a brief look at
the latest English Heritage Heritage at Risk publication will reveal many mausolea in a
much less happy condition.

STEPPING INTO THE BREACH

The widespread attitude of acceptance towards
decay and decline in grandiose monuments;
questions surrounding family responsibility
for these buildings; the inability of parishes
to take on the burden of caring for them; and
the prevailing unease with death: these are the
main factors specific to the mausoleum which
contribute to their present and lamentable lot,
as Jill Allibone recognised in the mid 1990s.
The scale of the challenge is therefore daunting.
What can be done?

Jill’s vision was for a body which would step
into the breach. It would use its conservation
alertness to concentrate on worthy candidates,
and assume responsibility for the friendless
structures. It would draw on its knowledge of
conservation organisations and processes, and
apply for grants. It would campaign to bring
the plight of mausolea to wider attention. And
it would employ the best of architects and
conservators to carry out works which would be
of enduring benefit to the structures in question.

Candidates for acquisition quickly
presented themselves. Foremost among them
was the Sacheverell-Bateman mausoleum at
Morley, Derbyshire. Designed by G F Bodley
and built in 1897, the refined Gothic structure
was conserved over a ten year period at a total
cost of just under £50,000 (a whisker under
the original estimate). Anthony Short and
Partners, a respected Midlands practice, were
the architects; Mark Parsons was the lead
partner. With elaborate glass by Burlison and
Grylls, complex ironwork, extensive masonry
repairs and re-roofing all being called for, this
was clearly a demanding case with which to
open the MMT’s account. In keeping with
the wishes of the founder, a thorough job
was carried out. The roof was replaced in
tern-coated steel as a security measure, and it
is hard (in this age of soaring scrap values) to
rue this decision. A major grant from English
Heritage was vital in making the project happen,
as was the commitment of Teresa Sladen, who
took over many of the responsibilities following
Jill Allibone’s death in 1998. The result is an
exemplary scheme and a secured mausoleum, which honours the memory of the MMT
founder as well as that of the Sacheverell-Batemans.

Other
early acquisitions included the Nash
mausoleum at Farningham, Kent and the Wynne
Ellis mausoleum at Whitstable by Charles
Barry junior, acquired in 1997. Wynne Ellis of
Tankerton Tower lies within a massive battered
sarcophagus, with steps leading to the burial
chamber below. Its doors were damaged and
its security threatened, so the MMT re-made
the doors, using the original bronze grilles and
whatever timber could be salvaged, and has
carried out regular sycamore clearance within
the enclosure. The Nash mausoleum, erected
in around 1778 for the uncle of architect John
Nash (and quite likely an early work of the great
Regency architect), was taken on by the MMT
after the death of the last surviving trustee
and restored with the help of English Heritage,
Sevenoaks District Council, the Pilgrim Trust,
the Leche Trust, the Georgian Group, and the
MMT’s own (pretty limited) funds.

More recently, the 1771 Heathcote
mausoleum at Hurley, Hampshire, entered
into the MMT’s care, and has recently been
fully conserved at a cost of £58,000 thanks to
grants from Hampshire County Council and
Winchester City Council, which permitted the
brickwork to be re-pointed and the complex
domed roof to be re-covered. The Guise
mausoleum at Elmore, Gloucestershire is an
important early neoclassical structure, built
after Sir John Guise’s death in 1732, with baseless
Doric columns supporting a pyramidal roof.
Only the lower parts of the columns remain
standing: of all of the MMT’s holdings, this is
the most challenging.
Most recently, in April 2008, the Boileau
mausoleum at Ketteringham, Norfolk joined the
portfolio. It came to us through the offices of the
late chairman Dr Thomas Cocke, an eminent
architectural historian. The Boileau mausoleum
was transferred to us after a very impressive
programme of restoration undertaken by the
South Norfolk Building Preservation Trust.

THE TRUST’S EVOLVING ROLES

Working in partnerships like the one with
South Norfolk Building Preservation Trust at
Ketteringham, represents a fruitful avenue for
the MMT to explore, and full credit is owed
to those other parties who have done the all-important
rescue work. The MMT is not able to
tackle the conservation demands of many cases,
but can perform a helpful role in assuming
long-term guardianship of these formerly
friendless structures.

Another important form
of partnership is with parishes: local care and
occasional maintenance lies at the heart of
successful management.
Another role that the MMT wants to
develop further is that of encouraging interest
in the genre of funereal architecture. Its highly
commended gazetteer, compiled by Teresa and
David Sladen, is an exceptional resource: easy
to use, fully illustrated and with brief condition
surveys, it amply displays the uniqueness,
variety and abundance of the mausoleum type.
The trust also wants to promote more visits,
lectures, and events of interest to its growing
band of members.

The Wynne Ellis mausoleum, Whitstable, Kent

CHURCHYARD AND CEMETERY
MONUMENTS

The observant reader will have registered
that while there are two M’s in MMT, all
discussion above has been of mausolea. Why
include the word ‘monument’ in the title
if this is an area that the MMT has yet to
engage with? This is a fair point, and is one
that the MMT is beginning to discuss. We
lack a national body to champion the cause of
churchyard and cemetery monuments, and it is
increasingly evident that this is one area of the
historic environment that is in persistent and
irreversible decline, with only partial signs of
rescue in all too few places.

GATHERING STRENGTH AND SUPPORT

The MMT is fortunate to have two
distinguished scholars as its patrons: Professor
James Stevens Curl and Tim Knox at the Soane
Museum, as well as learned and determined
trustees. The work of the trust is made possible
by the diligence of its secretary, John St Brioc
Hooper, and by the financial direction of Ian
Johnson. It is supported by a regular newsletter,
expertly compiled by Signe Hoffos.

A seemingly infinite amount remains to
be done, and the MMT is still a young and
fledgling charity. But the trust has already built
up a strong reputation as a conservation charity
that achieves its projects and it draws great
strength from the realisation that it can draw on
the enthusiasm of growing ranks of supporters.

As family obligation dies away, others must
step up to the mark. Jill Allibone identified a
pressing issue and laid down a challenge to
all who cherish this often overlooked aspect
of our heritage. Readers who would like to
help to ensure the survival of an endangered
mausoleum can find out how to get involved at the MMT’s website.

Recommended
Reading

Howard Colvin, Architecture and the Afterlife, Yale University Press, London and New Haven, 1991